¶ UK anti-spin summit to debate new "rules of engagement"

Today's the day when British professionals from media and public relations will get together to debate their working relationship and their "joint responsibility to serve the public interest".

The summit was called by Anne Gregory, the president of Institute for Public Relation, UK's leading public relations industry professional body. Professor Gregory has set the terms of discussion in a public address -- titled "The Press, Public Relations and the Implications for Democracy" -- published originally on Anti-spin.com, a website owned and edited by Patrick Weaver, a journalist (former business editor of the Independent):

It is not good for society that the critical faculties of the press are being blunted. Neither is it good that the genuine contribution of PR to the public agenda goes unrecognised. There is a mutual responsibility for a respectful distance to be kept between both professions and an equal responsibility for both to act respectfully towards the other, and that means honesty and integrity must prevail if society is to be served. It is not good that the media regurgitates uncritical, trivial pap. However it is also their responsibility to seek out those sources and stories, often through offices of a good PR, that will open up genuine and informed debate in society and bring into the agenda issues of genuine concern that are life-enhancing.

The invitation to participation to such a debate came in the wake of two important reports, the Independent Review of Government Communications and the Hutton Inquiry report, that revealed the "breakdown in trust between government and politicians, the media and the general public." Gregory thinks this is a symptom of a wider and much deeper problem:

For some time I have been concerned about the relationship between the media and professional communicators who speak on behalf of organisations. [...] At one end the relationship between the media and professional communicators is so close and the dependency so great that judgement becomes clouded on both sides and neither is as challenging towards or independent of the other as they should be. At the other end the mistrust and antagonism is so marked that information that is genuinely in the public interest is either suppressed altogether or misinterpreted. Make no mistake, I lay the responsibility on both sides and I can do that because I have worked on both sides.

I see professional communicators put such a gloss on things, or use such dubious practices that their grandmothers would blush. I have also seen journalists exploit and twist the material and goodwill provided by professional to an extent that offends all decency. [...]

What we are witnessing in many ways is what is call[ed] the PR-isation of the media. The independence of journalists can be called into question as they become more dependent on partisan sources, without this being made clear to their readers. This dependence means that their ability to question and analyse is being challenged by public relations practitioners who wield real power.

Furthermore, the media industry itself is complicit. The proportion of news coverage is declining with more and more space being devolved to the puerile, voyeuristic and trivial - the 'dumbing down of the media'. Lazy journalists are happy to accept pre-written copy without challenge and take the easy option by not checking the facts for themselves or by not finding opposing voices.

Meanwhile they indulge in the easy sport of PR bashing and there is little the PR industry can do given the rules of the press complaints committee where only individuals can take up grievances.

It is time that the representatives of both the press and the PR industry has a serious discussion about the rules of engagement.

Who are the participants to this roundtable? According to Patrick Weever, the forum will be attended by editors, academics, regulators, and media personalities as Jeremy Paxman, John Humphrys, Lord Birt, Robert Phillis and Jeremy Dear (the general secretary of the National Union of Journalists).

Ordinary people were invited to participate in the discussion -- but I failed to find (on both Anti-spin.com and IPR website) any indication on how someone can contribute his or her opinion to this debate.

Until we figure this out, please note that our colleague blogger Philippe Borremans promised to give us more details about what was discussed at the meeting. Thanks, Phil!

RESOURCES:

• The Press, Public Relations and the Implications for Democracy - Anne Gregory, FIPR, President IPR, Professor of Public Relations, Leeds Metropolitan University. September 2003


• Ending the spin – a call to action - Anne Gregory


• The Independent Review of Government Communications: "The terms of reference [...] are: to conduct a radical review of government communication. This will include the examination of different models for organising and managing the government's communication effort, the effectiveness of the current model based on the Government Information and Communication Service, and the roles played by other civil servants including those special advisers who have a responsibility for communications."


• Crusader for truth - or more spin? - Patrick Weever, The Observer, August 10, 2003: "Professor Anne Gregory, president-elect of the Institute of Public Relations, is set to detonate a bombshell. She is asking editors and proprietors, movers and shakers of journalism to sit down with the IPR and make truth, not spin, the mantra. She also wants ordinary people to participate in the debate."


• Journalism's 'problem' can't be solved by PRs - Patrick Weever, The Observer, March 21, 2004: "Gregory has a tentative suggestion for a new self-regulatory body on spin, comprising journalists and PR people. Journalists who are shortchanged by PRs, or vice-versa, could appeal to this body, which would complement the work of the Press Complaints Commission. All this is for debate."

[81] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks